| 查看: 8549 | 回复: 32 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
海宝心声木虫 (著名写手)
|
[交流]
求助，MDPI旗下论文被reject，但一直还没收到邮件 已有13人参与
|
||
|
论文pending editor1天 under review 23天（7天的时候，有一个审稿人的意见返回来了，给的差差评） 然后昨天，23天的时候，我看系统，status是pending editor decision 点开view之后，里面有个editor decision，写的是： Submission to First Decision (Days) 23 Editor Decision Decision Reject and decline resubmission Decision Date 4 December 2019 Review Report Reviewer 1 Review Report (Round 1) 只有一个审稿人，给的审稿意见很差： Comments and Suggestions for Authors Although the implementation of the these kind of numerical models might be helpful for the fatigue analysis of such structures under study, the novelty by the authors is not given clearly. In addition, the quality of presentation must be improved. 这种情况，我该怎么办呀？ 想申诉一下，陈述一下自己的创新性，建议编辑再找两个审稿人，然后我推荐几个审稿人，然后再附上润色公司的润色证明。 各位觉得怎么样？谢谢大家了。 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
求个博导看看
已经有17人回复
-
青基代表作，AAAI之类的A会的special track在国内认可度高吗？还是归为workshop之流？
已经有3人回复
-
上海工程技术大学【激光智能制造】课题组招收硕士
已经有6人回复
-
带资进组求博导收留
已经有11人回复
-
自荐读博
已经有5人回复
-
上海工程技术大学张培磊教授团队招收博士生
已经有4人回复
-
求助院士们，这个如何合成呀
已经有4人回复
-
临港实验室与上科大联培博士招生1名
已经有9人回复
-
写了一篇“相变储能技术在冷库中应用”的论文，论文内容以实验为主，投什么期刊合适？
已经有6人回复
-
最近几年招的学生写论文不引自己组发的文章
已经有11人回复
海宝心声
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4195.4
- 散金: 1988
- 红花: 14
- 帖子: 2735
- 在线: 253.1小时
- 虫号: 3761577
- 注册: 2015-03-24
- 专业: 结构工程
28楼2019-12-06 07:46:27
海宝心声
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4195.4
- 散金: 1988
- 红花: 14
- 帖子: 2735
- 在线: 253.1小时
- 虫号: 3761577
- 注册: 2015-03-24
- 专业: 结构工程
2楼2019-12-05 07:46:29
材料小蚂蚁
新虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 953.8
- 散金: 501
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 447
- 在线: 24.3小时
- 虫号: 16974693
- 注册: 2019-08-29
- 专业: 工程热物理与能源利用
3楼2019-12-05 07:47:13
海宝心声
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4195.4
- 散金: 1988
- 红花: 14
- 帖子: 2735
- 在线: 253.1小时
- 虫号: 3761577
- 注册: 2015-03-24
- 专业: 结构工程
|
review report form english language and style ( ) extensive editing of english language and style required (x) moderate english changes required ( ) english language and style are fine/minor spell check required ( ) i don't feel qualified to judge about the english language and style does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? yes can be improved must be improved not applicable ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) is the research design appropriate? yes can be improved must be improved not applicable ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) are the methods adequately described? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) are the results clearly presented? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) are the conclusions supported by the results? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) comments and suggestions for authors although the implementation of the these kind of numerical models might be helpful for the fatigue analysis of such structures under study, the novelty by the authors is not given clearly. in addition, the quality of presentation must be improved. submission date 11 november 2019 date of this review 18 nov 2019 23:09:55 |
4楼2019-12-05 07:47:28